APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Ricky Terrell Cox, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Nigel Marlin Reid, Sr., filed in the Hamblen County Criminal Court various motions, including a motion to reopen, which the court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. The State filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

In this extraordinary appeal, the State of Tennessee appeals the trial court’s decision to order a new trial for the defendant, Cordell Remont Vaughn, after a jury returned a guilty verdict of first degree (premeditated) murder and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court, after a hearing, granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. The State contends that the trial court abused its discretion because the court: (1) erroneously concluded that a State’s witness committed perjury at a suppression hearing based solely on the defendant’s submission of an affidavit that conflicted with that witnesses’ testimony at that hearing, and (2) erroneously concluded that the outcome of the defendant’s trial would have been different had this alleged perjury not occurred and had the defendant’s motion to suppress been granted. The defendant responds that the trial court properly considered the affidavit and reached the proper conclusion concerning whether the State’s witness committed perjury. Furthermore, the defendant contends that because the perjury at issue related to a constitutional right, the State was required to establish that the effect of the perjury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and it failed to meet that burden. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct because it failed to make any finding that the prosecution had, in fact, engaged in any misconduct. Moreover, the defendant has failed to show any prejudice resulting from the alleged perjury. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court granting a new trial is reversed.

Petitioner, Marquette Houston, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction, appeals the dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the petition was timely filed. The State concedes that the petition was timely filed because Petitioner delivered his petition to the appropriate prison official for mailing within the applicable limitations period. Following a review of the record, we agree and accordingly reverse the order of dismissal and remand this case to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition for postconviction relief.

The petitioner, Drew David Kirkman, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner stands convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of aggravated robbery and is currently serving an effective sentence of life in prison plus twenty years. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the postconviction court erred in denying him relief because he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to adequately prepare for trial and communicate with the petitioner; (2) arguing the motion to suppress on the day before trial which precluded proper review by the trial court; (3) failing to strike two jurors from the panel; and (4) failing to perfect and present a mental defense. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of the petition.

Defendant, Steven Van Tucker, was convicted of the indicted charge of theft of property valued greater than one thousand dollars and less than ten thousand dollars, a Class D felony. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court to twelve years as a career offender. On appeal, Defendant asserts that 1) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s objections to the State’s
challenges of three African-American jurors under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986); 2) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; 3) the trial court erred in admitting Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes; and 4) the trial court improperly denied Defendant’s request to be sentenced to Community Corrections. After a careful review of the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The State appeals the Morgan County Criminal Court’s order granting habeas corpus relief to the Petitioner, Author Ray Turner, and allowing him to withdraw his guilty pleas. The State argues that the Petitioner is not entitled to withdraw his guilty pleas because the thirty percent release eligibility for his two aggravated rape convictions was not a material element of his plea agreement. Upon review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment allowing the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty pleas if he cannot reach an agreement with the State and remanding the case to the Davidson County Criminal Court for further proceedings.

I concur with the majority opinion. As indicated in the opinion, I have criticized Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008), for its holding that a habeas court, not the convicting court, is to determine from the existing record if a petitioner subjected to an illegal sentence should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea. I believe it misinterprets Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. 2006). In Smith, a habeas corpus case, after the court concluded that an illegal sentence had been imposed, it determined from the guilty plea record that the plea to the relevant charge was not material to the “bargained-for” agreement and resulting effective sentence and held that the petitioner was not entitled to withdraw that guilty plea. Id. at 130. It distinguished the case from one in which the illegal sentence materially resulted from a plea agreement. See Henderson v. State ex rel. Lance, 419 S.W.2d 176, 178-79 (Tenn. 1967) (holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence).

The petitioner, Julius Perkins, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his 2002 jury conviction of first degree felony murder on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, trial court errors, and prosecutorial misconduct. Determining that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

A Carter County jury convicted the Petitioner, Connie Hughes, of first degree murder, abuse of a corpse, and forgery under $1000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment for the first degree murder and to two concurrent one-year sentences on the remaining convictions. The Petitioner appealed her convictions, and this Court affirmed her convictions. State v. Connie Hughes, No. E2006-00062-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1319373, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, May 7, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 17, 2007). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney at trial “opened the door” for the petitioner’s incriminating statements to be admitted into evidence at trial. The post-conviction court denied her request for relief after a hearing on the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed her petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Lakky Phosy, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Leon Goins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his Dyer County Circuit Court jury conviction of possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine and resulting 25-year sentence. In this appeal, he asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Scotty Lynn Edmonds, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and violation of the implied consent law, a Class C misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, -406. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 11 months and 29 days with all but 5 days to be served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for DUI, first offense. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Courtenay D. Robertson, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his jury convictions of attempt to commit second degree murder, aggravated arson, and felony evading arrest on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Antonio Wicks, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of second degree murder, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination of a State witness, and the trial court’s imposition of a 25-year sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the court.

The Petitioner, James E. Kenner, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis regarding his convictions for five counts of aggravated burglary, five counts of theft of property valued at $1000 or more, and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon, for which he is serving an effective seventy-five year sentence as a career offender. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Chelsy Marie Smith, pled guilty to theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a standard offender, to an effective sentence of one year in the Department of Correction followed by seven years on community corrections. After the Defendant’s release, a violation warrant was issued, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentence, finding that she had violated the terms of her sentence and ordered her to serve the remainder of her eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community corrections sentence and ordering her to serve the balance of her sentence in prison. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Charles E. Orange, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without appointing counsel or giving him an opportunity to amend his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Michael Blaine Ward, II, appeals the Coffee County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, aggravated spousal rape, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary, and resulting effective sentence of  twenty-one years. On appeal, he contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to (1) adequately investigate and prepare for trial, (2) give proper written notice of an alibi witness, (3) present material evidence at the trial, (4) object to inadmissible evidence and prosecutorial misconduct, (5) require the State to elect a single means by which the charged offenses were committed, (6) object to improper jury instructions, (7) preserve issues for appeal, and (8) object to his prosecution under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Timothy C. Watson, pro se, appeals the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2009 conviction for sale of cocaine over one-half gram and resulting fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he was denied the right to counsel at his trial and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mark Demcovitz (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to sell and received an eight year sentence. The trial court entered a judgment reserving two certified questions of law. On appeal, the Defendant asks that this Court answer the following certified questions: 1. Whether the stop of the defendant for “following too close” violated the
defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights when the statute is absent any objective criteria for the officer to base his determination on, thereby granting the officer unbridled discretion in determining when a violation occurs? 2. Whether the stop of a defendant for a minor “cite and release” traffic violation which provided for a fine only, the detention of the defendant exceeded the reasonable length and scope to effectuate the purposes of the stop, placement of the defendant in the secured area of the officer’s patrol car, the use of a drug dog “run” around the defendant’s vehicle, and the subsequent search of defendant’s vehicle violated the rights of the defendant under the federal and state constitutions and, therefore, all evidence resulting from the seizure and search should be suppressed? After a thorough review of the record, we answer each question in the negative and hold that the Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Larry Holmes, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post conviction relief from his convictions for four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary, and resulting effective sentence of seventy years. The trial court merged the aggravated robbery convictions with the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. The Petitioner contends that he was denied due process when the trial court failed to dismiss the kidnapping convictions and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jeffery Ratliff, appeals the Sullivan County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner stands convicted of six counts of rape of a child, six counts of incest, one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of aggravated sexual battery. He is currently serving an effective sentence of one hundred twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition because: (1) he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel; (2) his convictions violate the principle of double jeopardy; and (3) the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Punishment failed to comply with statutory requirements. Following review of the record, we conclude that there was no error in the post-conviction court’s decision and affirm the denial of relief.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert Jason Burdick, of one count of aggravated burglary and two counts of aggravated rape with bodily injury. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to a cumulative sentence of thirty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape with bodily injury, (2) the trial court erred by denying his pre-trial motions to suppress evidence, and (3) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and the length of his sentences but remand the case to the Criminal Court of Davidson County for additional findings regarding consecutive sentencing.
 

Between the years of 1988 and 1996, the Petitioner, Lawrence David Ralph, Jr., pled guilty to the offenses of public drunkenness, resisting arrest, interfering with the duties of a police officer, disturbing the peace, two counts of assault, driving under the influence, and harassment. On May 17, 2011, the Petitioner filed five separate pro se petitions for post-conviction relief. In five separate orders, the post-conviction court summarily denied relief, concluding that the petitions were not filed within the applicable statute of limitations. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred when it summarily dismissed his petitions. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.